See, this kind of bugs me. Who is the ADL to decide what “the American ideal” is? I certainly am not in favor of injecting religion into politics in any serious way, nor in exploiting faith for secular purposes, but I do think that a person of faith – whose faith is a central part of his or her life which, to give Joe Lieberman credit, his apparently is – should not be expected to entirely set that faith aside simply because he or she is in the public realm. Nor do I necessarily see the relevance of the First Amendment, since J.L. is not running as part of the government but as a private citizen, and he will not be a part of the government (again) unless or until he is elected.
There has to be some middle ground here somewhere. As a political candidate, I should not be required to check my moral and religious beliefs at the door. I’m with the Catholics and Moslems on this one. And please note, before you flame me, that I am not defending Liebermans God uber alles comment, which I agree was over the line in the other direction.
Arguing about Lieberman’s “quotes” seems like a silly waste of time. There are only three reasons to quote someone else: 1) To use that statement to reinforce your own; 2) To argue against the statement; and 3) to enter it into a conversation.
Clearly Joe did NOT argue against the statement, and as it was a speech he also could not have meant it as a point of conversation. Which leaves …
[aside] John, I’m surpries that you let Eve get by with “outta” when she really meant “oughta”.
[/aside]
Now let’s get back to the discussion of Eve’s cheesy … oh, nevermind.
I think that they have as much right - and some backing evidence to boot - to make their assertions as those who claim that we are a “Christian nation” and those who make the claims as stated in the OP.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, six days, 17 hours, 24 minutes and 48 seconds.
5709 cigarettes not smoked, saving $713.63.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
As a devout agnostic, all of this pandering to the “moral majority” (which is neither) makes me wanna hurl. If you think the Al and Joe show is revolting, just try to imagine what George and Dick have in store for us. Georgie would institute state religion if he could get away with it. It’s all really quite simple. There is really only one touchstone worth mentioning in this entire election. The issue is choice, be it reproductive, sexual OR religious. The Democrats are the only party with a chance in Hell of getting elected who will defend these core elements of our Constitution, and it’s as simple as that. In order to vote against Bush, I will have to hold my nose (choke down my vomit) and vote for Gore. Unless all of you women out there want to return to the Stone Age, you may wish to do the same. Bush is the biggest threat to our nation since Communism and I dread to think what his Administration would be like.
Question: How did a candidate like Bush receive millions of dollars in early campaign contributions without taking a concrete stand on a single substantial issue?
Answer: By hanging a “For Sale” sign around his neck.
Yes, I know, the Democrats aren’t much better, but beware the Jabberwock my son. There will be Hell to pay if Georgie gets ahold of the reins. Trust me.
Please refer to my new thread for more fun on the topic of this year’s presidential election. It is located at:
Well, Zenster, while I most assuredly won’t be voting for Shrub, I don’t think that society will crumble if he wins. Besides, I can always comfort myself with the result the last time someone named Bush wound up in the White House.
Eve, I’ll be giving Lieberman the opportunity to “clarify” his intent via a letter as well. (Your “outta” typo did not go unnoticed, but in light of my “wide-angle lens” typo I erred on the side of caution).
SouthernStyle, it is your opinion that Lieberman utilized the quotes to support his beliefs. I concur on that point; however, I disagree with the beliefs the quotes support. That fact is the reason for discussing the quotes.
Jodi, I must agree with your statement:
It should not be necessary for one to relinquish one’s beliefs to hold a public office; however, that is not the issue at hand. As the ADL stated:
[/quote]
Candidates should feel comfortable explaining their religious convictions to voters. At the same time, however, we believe there is a point at which the emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours.
[/quote]
You asked:
and stated:
The ADL does not compose “the American ideal.” The ADL recognizes that Lieberman’s statements may have serious ramifications should he be elected. Obviously, Lieberman has freedom of speech. But his comments specifically exclude (to some extent) those who are not theistically oriented. For that reason, the invocation of the First Amendment is completely relevant.
As the ADL stated:
Lieberman as an individual may maintain any perspective he prefers. Lieberman as Vice President may not. The implications of his statements, should he attempt to bring his campaign foci to fruition, would be unconstitutional. I presume Lieberman must be fairly tolerant; however, the alienation and condescension evident in his speech are offensive.
1) Athiests can be indivdually moral.
.
.
.
conclusion) A population of athiests cannot remain moral
Please supply the missing steps.
Possible misinterpretations/areas of confusion:
Faith does not belong in private life
No argument can possibly be made to support the idea that faith should not be officially sanctioned by a government agent/agency
the antonym of private is public, which can be interpreted as either openly displayed or supported by government funds/sanction
what exactly is the “justification” of an idea, anyway?
However, if you are certain that your statement clearly and unambiguouisly expresses your idea, who am I to suggest otherwise. I will rebut as follows:
The cannonical literature of every major western religion supports the idea that faith must be expressed in an individuals private life. Contrary to “no justification”, there is in fact a widely recognized requirement for faith to be internalized, not merely given hollow public expression. Your statement is not only false, it is egregiously inaccurate.
And I agree. But you realize, of course, that this serves to defend Lieberman’s actions in refusing to set aside his religious beliefs; if we all have “as much right” as everyone else, the ADL can no more tell him what not to say than I can tell them what not to say.
NEN points out that the ADL said “we believe there is a point at which the emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours.” Okay. But with respect, there are a lot of people who are theists (without necessarily promoting or even supporting greater mixing of religion and politics) but who do not consider the current level of “emphasis” on religion to be either inappropriate or unsettling. I recognize that the ADL does. I do not.
Explain to me how it is relevant, please. Based upon what he might do as V.P. (that position of power), in light of his own religious beliefs but in spite of the oath he will take to uphold the Constitution? In any event, I have never defended – and do not intend to defend – his comments, which I have already said I thought were over the line. But I am personally not overly alarmed by hypothetical, prospective attacks on the Constitution. It is my experience and belief that the Constutition, with a little help from zealous defenders, usually manages to come out on top. Besides, if your true concern is the Constitutional implications of the election, your time would be better spent considering who will appoint justices who will foster or follow an agenda you personally agree with. If you’re in favor of liberal construction of the Constitution – including the First Amendment – you may well decide to vote for Gore and Lieberman, theist or not. I mean, look at the alternative.
Please, please, tell me how you know. Go on. Try and prove that said statement has any validity whatsoever.
Of course. Lord knows, Bush wants to make women barefoot and pregnant, take away their vote, and reclassify them as property.
Take your hyperbole and shove it up your ass, okay?
And I include the following statements
in the list of hyperbole you can fuck yourself with.
BTW- are you ever going to return to that thread and, say, support the arguments that me and Chaim have rebutted? Or do you think that a vitriolic hit-and-run attack is the same thing as a well-reasoned argument?
You’re a fuck-wit, Zenster. You don’t have any real arguments, so you couch your words in innuendo, exaggeration and hate (“Worse than Communists! He’ll return women to the Stone Age! He’ll turn the Supreme Court into the new Inquisition!”) and put your fingers in your ears when people try to give you a few facts. You’re a demagouge, Zenster, and people who take your attitude- that slander is better and easier than truth, and that hyperbole isn’t lying, and that whatever it takes to win is okay- are the reason that so many people are disgusted by the modern political process.
You want to debate? Fine, get some fucking facts together and show up in Great Debates. I’ll be there with my facts, and we’ll have some reasoned discourse. Want to just spread some slime and vitriol and pretend that it’s not ignorance and hate in motion? Go get a chainsaw and give yourself an impromptu lobotomy. Your critical thinking and communications skills will remain unchanged, but you’re far less likely to spread your shit over this message board.
My apologies for the hijack; I just despise people who think that hyperbolizing and fear-mongering is an acceptable way to discuss matters. I’m going to go lie down until my blood pressure cools down a little. Please, carry on with the original discussion.
Apologies, Eve – the rant had gotten side-tracked by arguing semantics in an election year (a thread for “Great Debates” if ever there was one!)
I have zero love for Gore – and still don’t know where I stand on Lieberman. I find his “differences” with the party line quite refreshing, but so far he’s not shown me any reason to trust him – quite the contrary. He bucked the party by being the voice of dissension during the impeachment proceedings and then voted contrary to his own rhetoric. He’s had long-standing positions on major issues that were contrary to the party, but abandoned them to join the presidential ticket.
I don’t trust him.
But no matter what I eventually decide about Joe, his presence will not persuade me to vote the ticket. I just can’t go along with Big Al.
Imagine how you’d feel if you were—as you are—religious, and the VP candidate in the party of your choice said,
“As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to Godlessness and the absence of religion . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and atheistic people . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained with religion.”
You’d be pretty ticked-off and upset, wouldn’t you? That having been said, I too will probably vote Democratic. I just won’t be HAPPY about it.
It seems to me and others in this thread, that the answer is campaign reform. How are we gonna do that?
Ahem…I really am serious. I know it’s a hypothetical question, but I really would like to know: If ten thousand Dopers wrote in Cecil for POTUS, would anyone notice?
Please note that I did not say that one followed from the other. Merely that they are not contradictory. As such, there are no steps, missing or otherwise. If you see a contradiction, feel free to point it out.**
…However, if you are certain that your statement clearly and unambiguouisly expresses your idea, who am I to suggest otherwise**
[/QUOTE]
The statement may not be clear on its own, but was very clear from the context in which it was originally used by APB9999. When referring to it, I helpfully quoted the entire paragraph, so as to avoid this sort of confusion. In light of this, your rebuttal, while mildly cute, is pointless. I would suggest that you refer to the original usage of this term, and see if you can do a better job of figuring out what it means.
There are already three major ‘minor’ party candidates out there (Nader, Buchanan, and the other Reform Party candidate); add to that the Socialist and Libertarian candidates (who, despite getting hundreds of thousands of votes each election, don’t get taken seriously either), and you’ve got a huge field of people the press wants to advertise as “the candidates of the disillusioned”. Another ten thousand votes for a write-in candidate would be well below the radar, what with the millions already going the disillusion route.
You’re best off voting for Nader if liberal, or Buchanan if conservative; make enough discontent to actually get some electoral votes or elect some local reps, and the mainstream pols will sit up and take notice (remember the flurry around Ventura when he was first elected?).
I am an atheist. This fact should not come as a surprise. I find the religious vein prevalent in the current campaigns unsettling. I understand that many theists may not feel similarly. I understand that a candidate may wish to appeal religious people to obtain votes. That is a smart course of action–religious people are in the majority. I have no problem with a religious man in office. I do have a problem with a religious man who may implement religiously oriented programs/laws.
Lieberman has a platform. That platform dictates a reaffirmation of faith and focus of the people and nation toward God and God’s purpose. Liberman is a senator. Lieberman, as a member of the goverment, has issued a statement from which one may infer he supports theistic orientation, i.e. he supports on religion over another. His statements violate the First Amendment. Any future efforts to enforce the perspectives evident in his platform will also constitute infractions.
Yeah, that alternative looks positively stellar. I don’t like Bible-thumping Dubya, but I don’t like derisive comments either. Which is the lesser of two evils? Do I have a third option?
Eve, I don’t know how to respond without seeming to minimize your point and your feelings, which I don’t intend to do. I can see why his statement would piss you off.
But would it piss me off if he had made the statement you set forth? Honestly, no. I believe the Constitution can largely take care of itself through the mechanism of the courts. I also truly believe that 99.9% of what gets said by candidates during campaigns is hot air and mouth noises. Far more important to me personally is the candidates track record on issues I think are important – that’s where the rubber hits the road, IMO. So while I can see why you (and others) might be upset – and I agree his statement was over the line – to me it’s just so much blah-bity blah-blah. Now, I’m not saying that a candidate could not make a statement so outrageous or offensive that I would not immediately write him or her off – I’m sure they could. But Lieberman’s statements were not, for me, of that calibre, and neither would be the hypothetical opposite you posted.
Me, too and, considering that I’m a Republican, me neither.